243 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

zorak ramone, on 24 April 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

So, did anyone try the mechlab thing that DV uploaded? I thought it might be an interesting way to test the system. I.e. to see how broken a configuration you could make.

Anyway, I updated it. This time I improved the FF armor addition system (you can allocate crits where you want, but they have to be balanced accross the mech), added detailed descriptions of what I've changed from CBT, and added a bunch of mechs that could/should be in MWO, including the winners of the mech polls from the general discussion.

DV, I've emailed it to you again if you don't mind uploading it again.

I looked at it and tried to dig into the details. It seems rather straight forward IMO. I still think equipment (electronics, HS, etc) should be universal and only weapons should be limited by 'color slots'. Mind you I think electronics in particular should not be universal, they should be limited by chassis. But I really think if you replace a PPC with a ml, you should be able to throw an ECM pod in the slot if you like.

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 24 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

I looked at it and tried to dig into the details. It seems rather straight forward IMO. I still think equipment (electronics, HS, etc) should be universal and only weapons should be limited by 'color slots'. Mind you I think electronics in particular should not be universal, they should be limited by chassis. But I really think if you replace a PPC with a ml, you should be able to throw an ECM pod in the slot if you like.

Since slots are limited by mech, tech slots essentially have the effect of limiting eletronics by mech somewhat (although it makes certain electronics, like ECM/BAP/TC interchangeable). It may be a good idea to limit the specific electronics as well.

I do think there is another advantage to having tech slots, as opposed to allocate-anywhere, even with a electronics restriction by chassis. The advantage is the ability to model the electronics on the mech's model just like weapons. I think that this is especially imporant for AMS: you could have a little machine gun firing instead of missles just exploding in mid air. For things like ECM and BAP, the model could be elongated domes or something. For the TC, maybe some kind of camera or range finder.

If you decide to go with the free tech slot idea, you could model the tech item as some kind of pod on or near the top of the mech and you could make this pod a separate hit location thats easier to shoot off like the Marauder's gun in MW4 (as opposed to normal tech slots which would be integral to the mech).

Maybe it would be too complicated, but I think it could be cool.

EDIT: also, added mechlab to the OP

Edited by zorak ramone, 24 April 2012 - 01:20 PM.

[Belisarius1]

I had a play with it. It looked good, but it's hard to tell with such basic tech. I still really dislike the idea of SRM12s as well. It's also missing heat sink/ammo functionality isn't it?

Honestly, what I'm really interested in right now is an MWO mode. I think about the most productive use of our time is demonstrating just how broken the current system is.

Edited by Belisarius†, 24 April 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Heat sinks and ammo are allocated in columns W and X, respectively. Since all ammo weighs one ton, I didn't bother to distinguish between different types of ammo (it doesn't really affect mech construction.

Note that when you're using DHS, you have to allocate all of the crits (this allows for crit spreading). So if you want to add a single DHS to the LT, put a 3 in the LT row, column X. One of the boxes in column I lets you switch from HS to DHS. Also in column I, your heat scale (max heat drained per 10s) and max heat.

As for the SRM 12s ... these are absolutely equivalent to 3xSRM4 in terms of heat, weight and crits.

MWO mode shouldn't be too hard to implement.

[Sprouticus]

I agree with Bel, an MWO mode that we keep up to date would be the most useful implementation at this point.

So if an SRM 12 is exactly the same as 3x SRM4, why would you ever use one since one crit hit would destory the entire weapon.


Oh, and what is the rule for crit spreading for DHS? I'm not familiar.

Edited by Sprouticus, 25 April 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[guardiandashi]

if the "crit spreading" allows the crits for a DHS to be in multiple locations EG leg and torso then it is a distinct violation of the bt construction rules that MWO seems to be following so far.

also from the sound of it the srm12 is a made up weapon as there are only 3 srm launchers altho there are varients of them
srm2 srm4 srm6 then there are the ssrm2, (available in timeline) ssrm4 not available, and ssrm6 also not yet available

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 25 April 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

I agree with Bel, an MWO mode that we keep up to date would be the most useful implementation at this point.

So if an SRM 12 is exactly the same as 3x SRM4, why would you ever use one since one crit hit would destory the entire weapon.


Oh, and what is the rule for crit spreading for DHS? I'm not familiar.

The reason why you would use a SRM12 over 2xSRM4 is that, in this system, I'm limiting hardpoints to one weapon. So, if you have 2 M3 hardpoints (say the catapult, which as one in each arm), you can mount two launchers. If you don't include things like SRM12s then one of two things happens:
-The maximum number of SRMs you can mount of the catapult is 2xSRM6 (one launcher per hardpoint)
-Or, you make an exception for missles (or just SRMs) to allow more than one weapon per hardpoint

I think both are bad ideas, as the first unecessarily gimps SRMs and limits the configuration possibilites of missle mechs, and the second would be both confusing to players (why do the green hardpoints act differently than all the others?) difficult for the mech modelers (how do we take into account all possible combinations of missles on the model?) and introduce a number of balancing issues.

===

Crit spreading for DHS is a rule modification that I am proposing. It basically would allow IS mechs to spread DHS crits like AC20s. You can read all about it on the CBT construction rules changes sheet. If you want to turn it off, theres a setting for that.

guardiandashi, on 25 April 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

if the "crit spreading" allows the crits for a DHS to be in multiple locations EG leg and torso then it is a distinct violation of the bt construction rules that MWO seems to be following so far.

In this thread, I've proposed a number of changes to the CBT construction rules. This is one of them, and it can be turned off.

[MaddMaxx]

Plucked from another thread I think:

Any thoughts on how the MechLab may allow a player to go through the Variants but stay within a set weapons scheme, be it Sniper, Scout, Brawler etc etc.

If Player A is a good Medium Sniper and his/her first Chassis selection is tweaked to suit their style of play, will the next Variant choice force another play style on that player simply due to the MechLab providing unique, tightly controlled hard point Variant Builds?

Would that not be seen as a draw back of some proportion or are players gonna have to suck it up to get to Elite Chassis status in a weight class?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 April 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[zorak ramone]

I just emailed a version to DV that has a MWO mode setting in it. Also, I moved the Raven to MWO confirmed.

Did you know that with DHS, and unrestricted hardpoints, you can make a Hunchback with 2xERPPC, 1xERSL and perfect heat efficiency (i.e. is impossible to overheat)?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Not sure ERSL is available in 3049. If knock is a factor using endo and DHS you can fit 1XERPPC, 1XLBX10 (3tons ammo with CASE) 1XML,
perfect heat and 99.4% armour. As it has 10 free crits you could go to an XL engine and push it to 5,8. Again a totally different mech.
MechLab without crit limits doesn't really restrict you that much.

[Sprouticus]

As I posted in the release thread, the inclusion of the Raven makes me wonder if I am wrong thinking they will limit the release to L1 tech.

Sure you could do the 1X and 2X and still stay with mostly L1 tech, but even then you have to put TAG and NARC on it. Not it becomes a question of not whether they will do it, but what they will and wont include.

[Belisarius1]

I'm against DHS splitting. I just don't see what it adds except more flexibility, which is a tide we're already fighting against. It also doesn't make much sense to me from a believability standpoint, even if it's in the construction rules. Why are you going one way on endo-steel and the other on DHS?

I'd still prefer stackable missile hardpoints over SRM12. In fact, I'd rather have neither, and just accept that the catapult isn't a good SRM boat, just like the hunchback isn't much of an AC2 boat. There's other mechs that will be able to fill that role.

I'm also increasingly against the free equipment slot, but that one will come down to whether ECM/BAP etc is as powerful here as it was in MW4.

Edited by Belisarius†, 25 April 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[Sprouticus]

I think electronics should only be availabel to certain mech model/variants. If you want to move ECM from the torso to an arm or whatever on a mech that is eligible I have no issue with it. Especially with Endo/Ferro or Endo/XL combo scout/light mechs where internals are very limited.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

And the new version is up

http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR Mechlab v2.1.xlsx

[zorak ramone]

DV^McKenna, on 25 April 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

And the new version is up

http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR Mechlab v2.1.xlsx

And added to the OP.

By the way, the 2xERPPC, perfect heat efficiency HBK can be made, using MWO mode, without touching the engine or armor.

Sprouticus, on 25 April 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

As I posted in the release thread, the inclusion of the Raven makes me wonder if I am wrong thinking they will limit the release to L1 tech.

Sure you could do the 1X and 2X and still stay with mostly L1 tech, but even then you have to put TAG and NARC on it. Not it becomes a question of not whether they will do it, but what they will and wont include.

I included the 1X in the mechlab. The 1X had "EW equipment" which functioned as a BAP and ECM with half range. It also weighed more than BAP and ECM combined (7.5 tons vs 3). For the 1X, I gave it two T2 hardpoints and mounted "xBAP" and "xECM" (3.5 tons and 4 tons respectively), which basically replicates the EW equipment of the 1X

For MWO, the could include the prototypical EW equipement or just go straight to the 3L and allow BAP and ECM.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 25 April 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

I'm against DHS splitting. I just don't see what it adds except more flexibility, which is a tide we're already fighting against. It also doesn't make much sense to me from a believability standpoint, even if it's in the construction rules. Why are you going one way on endo-steel and the other on DHS?

I'd still prefer stackable missile hardpoints over SRM12. In fact, I'd rather have neither, and just accept that the catapult isn't a good SRM boat, just like the hunchback isn't much of an AC2 boat. There's other mechs that will be able to fill that role.

I'm also increasingly against the free equipment slot, but that one will come down to whether ECM/BAP etc is as powerful here as it was in MW4.

RE DHS and ES: the main motivator for the heat sink splitting was leg crits. IS mechs can't really do much with those two critical slots in the legs unless you decide to put ammo (other than gauss) in them (always a bad idea). On the other hand, if you allow mechs to upgrade to FF armor (with restictions, as I've tried to include in the mechlab), then the leg crits would have some use. Crit spreading for DHS isn't something I'm completely adamant about. Just an idea I had.

As for why DHS and no messing with ES ... well, its more of a """realism""" argument. ES is mech structure ... i.e. the skeleton. Its the frame that everything is hanging on. You can't just go and replace the skeleton. Think about it from the standpoint of a car: you can't replace a car's frame. You can replace almost anything else: engine, transmission, even body panels. But not the frame. For DHS, you could imagine them either as 3 heat sinks that weigh 1/3 of a standard HS, and drain 2/3 the heat, or as a single heat sink with three units connected by coolant cables. Thing is, you could make an argument for how a DHS could be split, but not for skeleton replacement.

There's also a balancing issue with replacing ES. ES is simply the best weight saving equipment in the game. It should have some kind of balancing factor and I think that not being able to change it is acceptible. Allowing crit-spread doesn't really affect the DHS, especially when you consider that the CBT construction rules didn't have the same restrictions on ES and FF (i.e. adding them and re-arranging crits) that I'm proposing (i.e. if I have two crits in a location, and want to add a DHS, I could just move some ES/FF/something else to the legs and put in the DHS).

RE: stackable missles: If I had to choose stackable missles versus no stacking but only standard SRMs, I would go with only standard SRMs. I think its a big mistake to introduce inconsistencies in how different hardpoints work. Another possibility would be to go the MWLL route and instead of mounting SRM12s, you mount 2xSRM6s or 3xSRM4s. Its basically just renaming the SRM12 but in way that doesn't introduce names that aren't in CBT. Its also essentially missle stacking, but without making missle hardpoints behave differently from other hardpoints.

RE: free equipment slot: This was mainly motivated by how essentiall AMS was in MW4. When HRR (as CB, GDL, etc) was still in NBT, on certain maps, where we knew missle mechs would be prevalent and nasty (and any time we fought CDS), we would always bring AMS on everything. It was that important. The other motivation was the 3025 mechs, which in stock carry no electronics. I thought this might unecessarily gimp them in the future, but this could be solved by giving them hardpoints that they don't use. Anyway, more of an idea than something I'm adamant about.

Edited by zorak ramone, 26 April 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Belisarius1]

Honestly, I always liked the fact that AMS could only be taken on certain 'mechs. In HC, missiles got a big buff and were enormously powerful, but they got away with it because AMS made 'mechs accordingly resistant. It gave really clear character to some designs, where if you were the fire support catapult you made damn sure you left the bushwackers to someone else, and tried to narc/dumbfire them if you had no other option. AMS could singlehandedly turn a second-rate chassis into a good one, and restricting it gave an Achilles heel to some designs that would have otherwise been insane. I liked that, but that's just personal preference.

On the DHS, I feel like the better solution would be bump legs up to three crits. I don't feel that would have many negative side effects, because they shouldn't have weapon hardpoints and - like you said - nobody's going to put ammo there anyway. Or you could allow DHS to only be split 2LL/1LT as a unique exception. CBT build rules already have quite a few of those, like the HGR being torso only.

On SRMs, I really think it would be better to just have them behave as normal. They just become crit-light but hardpoint intensive, and that's okay. Yes, the CPLT might not take SRM24 anymore, but it also gives SRM-heavy designs a unique layout with lots of small hardpoints. That's fine with me.


I'm actually starting to think it might be better to just attach full TT values to MWO's hardpoints, so instead of B3 you have the full B7, as well as the TT system itself. That way if you had a B6 hardpoint in a 9 crit arm, you could fill it and add a DHS, or go down to B3 with two DHS, but you could never take B9.

The issue with that is obviously energy weapons being tiny, but if we have to account for heatsinks as per TT I'm... starting to wonder if that's not as much of a problem as I originally thought. At least for the IS, you can still differentiate ML/LL/PPC by hardpoint size.

Not sure. I can't help but feel like the best way forward here is to work from MWO's system rather than designing something completely different. I feel like that would be a way of dodging the MW4 stigma without sacrificing restrictions.


Also, multi multi point post.... I would really like to revive your smaller crit values for light 'mechs thing from a while ago. I think that's highly relevant if the devs stick with TT crits.

Edited by Belisarius†, 27 April 2012 - 04:19 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Actually smaller mechs having the same number of crits as larger mechs means they can often go for both FF and ES as they are much more severely weight limited on what they can fit. Weight limitations always leave a lot of empty space on small mechs otherwise.
With regard to the hardpoints, the view I stated a lot earlier was that the Devs could just give a list of acceptable weapons for that hardpoint.
The ML hardpoints on the Hunchback would then have ML and (if in) MPL listed. If they decided to allow an LL then that could be listed but not the the PPC. For the Carapult, perhaps it would allow 2xSRM6 as well as the LRM types. This system would have the advantage of allowing newcomers to see what is possible. It could also have warnigs if you needed to free up weight and/or space.
Whatever system is in place needs to be simple to use, without the underlying mechanics exposed, for the influx of people to MW.

[Belisarius1]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 27 April 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

Actually smaller mechs having the same number of crits as larger mechs means they can often go for both FF and ES as they are much more severely weight limited on what they can fit. Weight limitations always leave a lot of empty space on small mechs otherwise.

That's the exact reason we want to change their crit totals.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 27 April 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

With regard to the hardpoints, the view I stated a lot earlier was that the Devs could just give a list of acceptable weapons for that hardpoint.
The ML hardpoints on the Hunchback would then have ML and (if in) MPL listed. If they decided to allow an LL then that could be listed but not the the PPC. For the Carapult, perhaps it would allow 2xSRM6 as well as the LRM types. This system would have the advantage of allowing newcomers to see what is possible. It could also have warnigs if you needed to free up weight and/or space.
Whatever system is in place needs to be simple to use, without the underlying mechanics exposed, for the influx of people to MW.

That's another option, but I think it's overly opaque. The advantage of a critical/slot system is that it has universal rules which can be applied across chassis. Rather than needing to remember a unique list for every single hardpoint on every single mech, you just need to remember what size hardpoint that mech has and mate it to your knowledge of the available weapons. Even if a crit system might at first be confusing for a newbie, it actually makes the combinatorial problem much simpler and more intuitive.

If you're really worried about the newbies, you can just add a builder helper that lists the weapons that will fit.

Edited by Belisarius†, 27 April 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

I would vote NO the DHS splitting. They provide 200% efficiency for the same Mass. Their only drawback is the 3 crit space allotment. Allowing splitting removes the ONLY drawback, and that only applies to the Legs, or spaces with 2 or less crits left.

If a player decides on DHS's, make them make room for that 200% efficiency level they provide.

In regards to the HP crit limiting thought, do we go with HP's of set size, with no ability to change at all, or a set size and allow downgrading? If the size was perma set, would that not require a whole new set of HP's to be maintained to cover all weapon load possibilities?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 April 2012 - 09:34 AM.